KABC010160902022
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2022
PRESENT:
Sri. Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B.,
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
CRL.MISC. No.5994/2022
Petitioners
1.K Nagaraju
S/o K. Venkatarao,
A/a 31 Yrs.,
2.Smt. Ankamma
W/o K. Venkatarao,
A/a 56 Yrs.,
3.K. Venkatarao
S/o K. Ramaiah,
A/a 62 Yrs.,
All are r/a No.1-46/6/A
Shankarnagar, Chandanagar
Hyderabad 500 050.
4.T. Indira
W/o Vasu,
A/a 37 Yrs.,
R/a No.4-327,
Ramakoteshwaranagar
Ongole
Prakasam District
2
Crl.Misc.No.5994/2022
Andhra Pradesh 523 001.
5: A Jeevitha
W/o A. Naresh,
A/a 31 yrs.,
R/a No.5-11/106/109
Nandan Meadows
Ameenapur
Medak
Telangana 502 032.
(By Sri/Smt: K. S. Prashanth,
Advocate)
AND
Respondents
State by Sriramapura P.S.,
Bangalore.
(By the learned Public
Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/S.438 OF Cr.P.C.,
The learned counsel for the petitioners has filed bail
petition U/s.438 of Cr.P.C., to grant anticipatory bail in favour of
the petitioners and also direct the respondent police to release
them on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime
No.152/2018(CC No.23301/2019), in the interest of justice.
2. On the basis of the complaint filed by Smt.S.P.Shilpa,
who is the wife of first petitioner the case was registered against
the petitioners in Crime No.152/2018 for an offences punishable
U/s.498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act and after
completion of investigation the respondent police have
submitted charge sheet against the petitioners before the
jurisdictional Court for the offences punishable U/s.498-A, 323
and 504 r/w Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act. Now the
petitioners being accused No.1 to 5 are apprehending their
3
Crl.Misc.No.5994/2022
arrest at the hands of respondent police. Hence, the petitioners
are constrained to file this petition and thereby they have
prayed for allowing the petition.
3. The Learned Public Prosecutor has filed objection to
this bail petition in detail by submitting that this bail petition is
not maintainable in law or on facts of the case and for the
reasons stated in the objection, she has prayed for dismissal of
the petition.
4. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the
materials on record.
5. The following points that arises for consideration of this
Court:
1. Whether the Petitioners have made out
sufficient grounds for granting anticipatory bail
in
their
favour
in
Cr.No.152/2018(CC
No.23301/2019) of Sriramapura P.S., at this
stage as sought for?

2. What order?
6. This court has answered the above points are as
under:
Point No. 1 :
In the Affirmative
Point No. 2 :
As per final order
for the following:-
REASONS
7. Point No. 1 : On considering the papers on record, it
is evident to note that the respondent police have registered a
case in Crime No.152/2018 against the petitioners for the
offences punishable U/s.498A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act
4
Crl.Misc.No.5994/2022
on the complaint of Smt.S. P. Shilpa, who is the wife of first
petitioner. After completion of the investigation the respondent
police
have
submitted
charge
petitioner/accused before the
sheet
against
the
jurisdictional Court for the
offences punishable U/s.498A, 323 and 504 r/w Sec.34 of IPC
and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act. Admittedly, the Petitioner No.1 is the
husband, and petitioners No.2 to 5 are the relatives of husband
of the alleged Complainant-Smt.Shilpa, which is not in dispute.
It is the case of the prosecution that on 24.11.2017 the
marriage of accused No.1 was solemnized with the complainant
as per the customs prevailing in their community, and at the
time of marriage on demand, the accused persons received
Rs.5,00,000/- as dowry from the parents of complainant. After
the marriage the complainant started to reside along with the
accused No.1 at Bangalore, at that time the accused No.1 to 5
subjected her to physical and mental cruelty in demanding
additional dowry. Further after the advise of elders the accused
No.1 and complainant started to reside in a Apartment at
Bangalore, at that time the accused No.1 insisted her to reside
at Hyderabad by demanding divorce. On 2.5.2018 the accused
No.1 along with accused No.2 and 5 came to Bangalore, and
picked up quarrel with the complainant with regard to playing
shuttle cock, when Cw.2 resisted, they assaulted her and the
accused No.1 has also assaulted the complainant. Unable to
bear the physical and mental cruelty caused by the accused
persons the complainant constrained to file complaint against
the petitioners before respondent police.

5
Crl.Misc.No.5994/2022
8. The contention of petitioners is that they are innocent
of the offences alleged against them and they have not
committed any such offences. but, as submitted by the learned
Prosecutor,
the
respondent
police
after
completion
of
investigation submitted charge sheet against the petitioners,
and hence, at this stage, this court cannot come to the
conclusion that the petitioners are innocent of the offences
alleged.
9.It is pertinent to note that even for the sake of
argument, it is accepted that there is prima-facie case against
the Petitioners for the offences punishable U/s.498-A, 323 and
504 r/w Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act, and the said
offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
The offences U/s.498-A of IPC is though non-bailable, but it is
exclusively triable by the Magistrate.
10.However, it is well settled principle of law that the
granting of bail is discretionary power of the Court and every
case should be considered on the basis of facts of each case.At
this juncture I would like to quote the dictum of law laid down in
the decision report in (2011) 1 Supreme Court cases 694
(Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs., State of Maharashtra
and others) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
that :-
“Sec.438 of Cr,P.C, is not extraordinary in
the
sense
that
it
should
be invoked
only
exceptional or rare cases – A great ignominy,
humiliation and disgrace is attached to arrest –
In cases where Court is of considered view that
6
Crl.Misc.No.5994/2022
accused has joined investigation and he is fully
co-operating with the investigating agency and is
not likely to abscond, in that event, custodial
interrogation should be avoided, and anticipatory
bail should be granted – exercise of said
jurisdiction
requires
maintaining
of
perfect
balance between two conflicting interests viz.,
sanctity or individual liberty and interest of
society.”
And also the dictum of law and guidelines laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Gurbaksh Singh
Sibbia V., State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565: 1980 SCC
(Cri) 465 has to be taken into consideration.
” What is the quantum of punishment is not
much important on the other hand, the Courts
ought to consider such nature and gravity of the
accusation and the exact role of the accused
must be properly comprehended before arrest is
made. Further the antecedents of the applicant
including the fact as to whether the accused has
previously
conviction
undergone
by
a
Court
imprisonment
in
respect
of
on
any
cognizable offence, and the possibility of the
applicant to flee from justice is also to be
considered. The
possibility of the accused’s
likelihood to repeat similar or other offences and
where the accusations have been made only with
the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant
7
Crl.Misc.No.5994/2022
by arrest him or her has to be looked into. It is
equally important to note that impact of grant of
anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large
magnitude affecting a very large number of
people has to be taken into consideration. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down
caution that the Courts must evaluate the entire
available material against the accused very
carefully and while considering the prayer for
grant of anticipatory bail.

While granting the
anticipatory bail the balance has to be struck
between two factors, namely, no prejudice should
be caused to the free, fair and full investigation
and there should be prevention of harassment,
humiliation
and unjustified
detention
of
the
accused. While considering the objections of the
prosecution,
the
court
has
to
reasonable apprehension of tampering
witness
or
apprehension
of
threat
consider
of the
to
the
complainant at time of granting anticipatory bail.
Further the frivolity in prosecution should always
be considered while granting anticipatory bail.
Also order of anticipatory bail should not be
“blanket” in the sense that it should not enable
the accused to commit further offences and claim
relief. It should be confined to the offence or
incident, for which apprehension of arrest is
sought, in relation to a specific incident ”.

8
Crl.Misc.No.5994/2022
11.By applying the above dictum of law and guidelines
laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the present fact of
the case has to be analyzed and considered. The certified
copies of order sheet complaint, FIR and
charge sheet
produced by the petitioners discloses discloses that a complaint
has been lodged by the complainant, who is the wife of
petitioner at Sriramapura P.S., in Crime No.152/2018 on
25.06.2018 at 16.00 hours for an offences punishable U/s.498A
of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act, and after completion of
investigation the respondent police have submitted
charge
sheet against the petitioners before the jurisdictional Court for
the offences punishable U/s.498A, 323 and 504 r/w Sec.34 of
IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act. The documents would disclose
that there is a matrimonial dispute between first petitioner and
the complainant. Admittedly, the first petitioner is the husband
and petitioners No.2 to 5 are the relatives of husband of the
alleged complainant – Smt.Shilpa, against whom the filing of the
complaint is sufficient to draw apprehension in the minds of the
petitioner regarding his arrest in non-bailable offence.
12.Whether the petitioners have committed the alleged
offences as contended by the complainant is a matter, which
has to be decided only at the time of full-fledged trial. At this
juncture, when the petitioners are ready to abide by the terms
and conditions imposed by the court and when they are ready
to offer due and adequate surety for their release on bail, then
this court is of the opinion that no purpose will be served by
allowing the respondent police to apprehend the petitioners and
to keep them in custody. On perusal of the documents, would
9
Crl.Misc.No.5994/2022
show that after filing of charge sheet, concerned Magistrate has
issued process against the petitioners, who are shown as the
permanent resident of Bengaluru. It is also equally important to
note that there is no necessity of the petitioners for any
interrogation, since the respondent police have filed charge
sheet against the petitioners, and the court has already taken
the cognizance against the petitioners for the alleged offences.
If suitable conditions are imposed on the petitioners making
them to appear before the learned Magistrate as and when
directed, which equate the apprehension of the prosecution and
hence, there is no chance of fleeing away from the trial of the
case. The objections raised by the learned Public Prosecutor
can be met by imposing stringent conditions. Moreover the
respondent police have completed the investigation and
submitted charge sheet against the petitioners, there is
absolutely no ground made out by the prosecution to reject this
bail petition. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioners
have made out sufficient ground for granting anticipatory bail in
their favour at this stage as prayed for as there exist reason to
believe that they may be arrested in non-bailable offences.
Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the affirmative.
13. Point No.2: In view of answer of this Court on point
No.1, this court pass the following:ORDER
The bail petition filed by the petitioners U/s.438 of
Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.
The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail
on their executing personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/-
10
Crl.Misc.No.5994/2022
each with one surety for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate/I.O., in the
case in Crime No.152/2018(CC No.23301/2019) of
Sriramapura P.S., subject to following conditions:
1. They shall not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat or promise to
any person acquainted with the facts of
the case so as to dissuade him/ her from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to
the concerned I.O.,
2. They shall not tamper with prosecution
witnesses in any manner and shall not
intimidate the complainant.
3. They shall not commit similar offence or
any offence in future.
4. They shall not leave the jurisdiction of
the concerned Court without prior
permission.
5. They shall not change their place of
residence outside the jurisdiction of
concerned Court without prior intimation.
6. They shall appear before the concerned
Magistrate Court as and when directed.
7. They shall appear before the concerned
Magistrate Court, within 15 days from
the date of this order, failing which the
order stands canceled, and
8. They shall furnish notarized copies of
their residential id address proofs.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on Computer, corrected by me
and then pronounced in open Court on this the 23rd day of June, 2022)
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.

11
Crl.Misc.No.5994/2022
Order pronounced in the open court
vide its separate order
ORDER
The bail petition filed by the petitioners
U/s.438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.